PDO doesn't stand for anything, but that doesn't mean we can't learn anything from adding up the overall shooting and save percentages for a team at even strength. A layman's explanation for 'PDO' and why we use it can be found here over at the Backhand Shelf. Basically, if a team is playing with a PDO number way higher than 1.000, they're producing above their expected output. If a team is playing with a PDO number below 1.000, they're producing below their expected output. Over the course of a long season, the number will generally correct itself.

The only thing I have to add this week is highlighting both Edmonton and Toronto. They made a trade today (story on Leafs Nation - story on Oilers Nation) exchanging noted puncher Mike Brown for a pick. The Oilers, whose PDO is unsustainably low, got Brown from the Leafs, whose PDO is unsustainably high. When the numbers normalize naturally, the Oilers will win more games and the Leafs may lose more games. The regression for the Leafs may boot them out of the playoffs. Commentators everywhere will point to this move as why that would happen.

I am here to tell you today that Mike Brown is not the reason the Leafs are shooting well and the Oilers are shooting poorly.

Cam Charron is a BC hockey fan that writes about hockey on many different websites including this one.

Question: In the last three years, the Leafs lowest shooting percentage is 9%, which I would imagine is above league average. Is this a massive multi-year string of good luck, or do the Leafs shoot slightly better than other teams? 10% is unsustainable, yes, but do you think they could finish between 9-9.5%?